On Wednesday afternoon as the Senate rejected a compromise plan to expand gun background checks, "Piers Morgan Live" welcomed Carlee Soto who voiced her opinion on the decision.

Soto, whose older sister Victoria perished as part of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012 expressed her disappointment with the vote, saying she was "disgusted and so disappointed in our Senate."

"If they were to lose a loved one to a horrific tragedy like we did, they would feel the same way and I don't wish upon anyone but if they had to bury their loved ones they would feel the same way I do," said Soto.
"This isn't all about the Second Amendment," she continued. "No one is trying to take away your guns."

soundoff(391 Responses)

EVEN W/ ALL YOUR RANTS AND SPEWING OF NONSENCE ABOUT GUNS AND GUN CONTROL. THEY COULD NOT EVEN GET THE DEM CONTROLLED SENATE TO PASS THESE LAWS. GIVE IT UP PIERS AND GO HOME – IF THEY WOULD EVEN LET YOU BACK....

What a shame Piers couldn't be on hand in London today to explain to the gentleman. (I hesitate to say terrorist) about anti-gun/violence laws, the day might have been saved. I am puzzled. How can a great country like Britain who gave us such giants like Monty and Churchill spawn such a naive fool as this? Well, maybe he's related to Neville. Piers go play ostrich at home. We already have our own share of fools.

They're not 'his' gun-control measures. They're measures put together by a group of politicians in consultation with individuals affected by gun-violence, along with many other relevant groups and individuals. Amazing how some of you people here act as if Piers is single-handedly leading the charge. I find it hard to stomach how many of you act like Piers is in the wrong for caring about the lives of American people. I'd rather have someone who cares about preserving American life here, than people who are content to see Americans killed rather than taking steps to save even one life.

Banning high capacity guns (that’s what Morgan was after, right?) do not save lives. If someone was attacked by multiple assailants all armed and he only had a gun with 10 bullets causing him to lose the fight and he and his family were killed, would you say “oh sorry, bad luck, at least his gun couldn’t be used by others to commit a mass killing, so it’s better that only a few people died instead.” ????? By the way, he may be protecting his CHILDREN too!! Why would you prefer a good civilian be under-armed against criminals, putting him at a disadvantage?
If this type of situation (good guys being outgunned by bad guys) happens more than 10 times anywhere over the year, the casualty is just as bad as Sandy Hook! If this happens more than 30 times throughout the nation in a year, it’s worse than all the mass-shootings combined!! How is under-arming civilians against criminals morally right???

And it’s Morgan who said that he’d deport himself if the gun control failed. What’s wrong with holding him to his word?

After reading your post, I felt compelled to reply. The comment "They're measures put together by a group of politicians in consultation with individuals affected by gun-violence, along with many other relevant groups and individuals" is simply wrong. In truth, they are measures put together by a group of anti-gun politicians who couldn't even wait for the blood to dry at Newtown before they started going after the usual suspects once again – the law-abiding.

Take for example our stellar governor in NY – Andy Cuomo. Mr. Cuomo thought it was a good idea to negotiate the most restrictive gun laws in the nation behind closed doors, without public input, and to hold a vote on the matter at 11:00 PM to avoid any opposition to it. The bill got passed by senators who never even read the legislation and has created a quagmire the likes of which, frankly, hasn't been see before. Even the reliably anti-gun New York Times commented, "Mr. Cuomo negotiated in secret with a few other powerful politicians on a dog’s breakfast of legislation that got no public discussion at all and was passed by state senators who had not even read it — because they were not given a chance to do so. The resulting bill is hard to judge on the merits. It’s a snarl of good ideas, strange ideas, and ideas that seem quite bad. While some items should figure into federal gun-control legislation, Washington should not take New York as an example of how to go about this difficult business."

My point is that so often these elitist politicians throw together some fancy-sounding task force like "gun violence task force", tell everyone who is opposed to anti-gun ideals to go to heck and refuse to even consider an alternative viewpoint. I'm sure none of the NRA's suggestions were incorporated into the "gun violence task force's" recommendations – which they should have if they were truly serious about, as you put it, "saving even one life."

Pete, are you having a problem posting? Many posters here, myself included, experience that once in a while. They were talking about it in another thread and saying that the words that have “t!t”(the middle letter is i) always get blocked. For example, const!tution, pet!tion, const!tuent, subst!tute, apt!tude, etc… There are other words also, such as, “J*p*n” or “J*p*nese”, “r*v*ge”, “sn*tch”… ( * = a )
When my posts had one of those words, they always get blocked. And they’d appear as soon as I take those words out or replace them with a different word. But there are other posts that didn’t have any of those words and still did not go through…

Liberals are destroying the country?!?!! Only because the idiots won't let them fix it!!! They try to make it harder for mentally ill and criminals to get guns and the idiots think that everything is okay and that there is no need to stricter background checks. If there were these background checks a years ago, I guarantee at least one of the mass shootings would have been avoided. Sure some criminals will find a way but not all of them. Some would get caught trying to get them illegally. Point and case: people drive without licenses. Does this mean we should do away with licenses? Why are you opposes to background checks? You obviously have something to hide. I am glad I don't live near you

“They [Liberals] try to make it harder for mentally ill and criminals to get guns...”
- This is not entirely correct. Here’s why.

Connecticut Senate Bill 452 was put forward to remedy the fact that it lacks an "assisted outpatient treatment" law. But the bill was passed to Connecticut's Joint Committee on Judiciary, where it quietly faded away because of opposition by those who viewed it as "egregious" and "outrageously discriminatory." Had this law passed, it may have forced Adam Lanza to be treated for his alleged mental illness instead of allowing him to roam free and ultimately to kill 26 persons in a vindictive rage. Why didn't the legislation pass? Because the ACLU and other "civil liberties" groups cried foul. The ACLU said the bill would "infringe on patients' privacy rights by expanding the circle of who can medicate individuals without their consent." ... Isn’t the ACLU a liberal organization?

You people are sick in the head! Since when is a background check a bad thing? Sound to me that we have alot of people who are planning a crime and don't want to get checked so they can get the most powerful weapon available.

As sad as I am for all victims of gun violence, I can't understand how these family members don't see that they're being used to push a political agenda. If Americans who are for these current gun bills did the slightest bit of theyre own research they would see that the guns that the Obama administration is trying to ban are used in maybe 1% of gun crimes in the US. I work in a bad neighborhood in Brooklyn NY as a fireman and I see Americans of all ages get shot and killed that never make the newspapers or headlines on a pretty much regular bases. They get no publicity, why, because their killed with illegal hand guns and the criminals are usually repeat violent offenders, whom liberal NY judges let out or plea bargain with. If all of the Obama administrations laws on guns passed it wouldn't stop or save any of those lives. Gangs in Brooklyn and other high crime cities don't follow the law as it is. And most cities with high gun violence already have strict gun laws. Its almost in possible to even own a shotgun in new york city, if you abide by the law. Yet theres thousands of hand guns and modified illegal fully automatic guns in new york city. (notice I didnt say AR-15's, because they dont use them because there only semi-automatic and the round it shoots is only the size of a 22. as well as its to big to conceal.

Dan, you don't understand because you are trying to use logic. The people legislating wouldn't know a .22 from a 45acp if the had to dig one out of their thick skulls. Maybe if you pulled them out of their upper east side apt and sat them in front of your station for a few days the ostriches would pull their heads out of their ass...I mean ground. The argument: Disarm the antelope so the leopard can play skip rope with him. Thank God I am out of that town!

I am a registered Republican and do not understand the craze about needing to have guns-what are you afraid of? Where is the common sense of having at least as much formality to go through to have a gun as to have a drivers license or a car? And what do we need 10 to 30 bullet magazines -those are real sporting for hunting!!! All the gun advocates need to grow up!

Daniel I wonder if Pierce has anything to say now that the soldier died in the street at the hand of a cleaver and a knife. I bet the soldier wished he had a gun. What now abolish cleavers and knifes, pressure cookers, rope, I bet the killers ends up dead in the states if it was here before he has a chance to finish his attack.

Piers....all I could do was pity Carlee Soto. She doesn't understand that you, the rest of the liberal media and our president are using her. You are a fool. You look like a fool...you sound like a fool.....you think like a fool. The American people are getting fed up with the liberal media and all the lies, spins and slants and fudging of numbers. The republicans were willing to compromise on a gun bill but the hard headed, all or nothing liberals wanted it all their way so they got nothing. Here is a little quote from you: “I can spare those Americans who want me deported a lot of effort by saying this: If you don’t change your gun laws to at least try to stop this relentless tidal wave of murderous carnage, then you don’t have to worry about deporting me,” Morgan wrote. “Although I love the country as a second home and one that has treated me incredibly well, I would, as a concerned parent first – and latterly, of a one-year-old daughter who may attend an American elementary school like Sandy Hook in three years’ time – seriously consider deporting myself.” We are waiting Piers....and please let the door hit you on the ass on the way out!

Jawohl?As you said to Werner Von Braun,designer of Apollo rocket which never went anywhere?I presume he'd as many Rebels working for him as Mr Pinkerton 'cos they're European and superior...

My you're a rude buncha rubes,aren't you?SOOOOOO disrespectful:where do ya wanna start?Allan?Muir?Smith?Carnegie? ALL SCOTS - LAW&ORDER;YELLOWSTONE AND YOSEMITE NOT NAMES OF CITIES AND NOT AS BONNY AS THE SCOTTISH HIGHLANDS ANYWAY(ask CNN)–OR HOW ABOUT ECONOMIES OR ALTRUISM?

Andrew Carnegie from Dunfermline,SCOTLAND,paid for 4000 Public Libraries out his own pocket stuffed with hardback
books taken out/read free of charge:you're very articulate all of you,I give you that,but it's manifest constant bitter rudeness,and you disappoint the land of the TRUE founding fathers.Scotland.

I remain your friend–10,000 British Army Sep 12th–and I know everyone's rattled,but you are SUCH a disappointment.

The world is laughing at America and their obsession with guns. If you poke your head outside the U.S. and read the international press, you'll see that civilised countries think that Americans who refuse to acknowledge the number of gun deaths are year as a problem are incredibly foolish and ignorant. It's not just Piers.

The rest of the world also has a problem with liberty. Where the United States citizens have made great mistakes is in forsaking liberty for safety or worse. It allowed slavery. It's embracing more and more collectivism that crushes individual liberty and exists only through quasi-authoritarian means.

Laughing at us? To heck with what the rest of the world thinks. It was our liberty that enabled the wealth to be created in the U.S. in the first place that was used to bail out the "rest of the world" from the Nazi War machine, to hold the communist totalitarians in check, etc. (no defending being the world's policeman, and in fact wish it'd stop... but laugh all you want....)

I agree Mayg. I am Canadian and I find it absolutely amazing that the USA has no problem dictating to any country it likes on how they should act and whether or not they should have this weapon or that nuclear device. BUT ask for change or even or suggest the same kind of control at home and you called Un – Americain or a herritic! I aplaud Obama for his efforts.
I offer this. If anyone was ever put into the position of having to make the decision between the life of a child or keeping their gun, how may would make the wrong choice? Its an easy decision when you are not really involved and when all you have to loose is your favourite gun. I would say if any reasonable Americain was put in that position not one person would choose to keep their gun. To bad so many of your children have been lost trying to teach you all that lesson. Why do you have to wait until the decision becomes a personal one? Why wait until it is to late, and it is your child? Why wait until the day where find yourself spending the rest of your life wishing you had made the right choice sooner.
Come to Canada. We have guns and enjoy target practice, hunting and gun clubs. We just go through a simple back ground check to make sure were are not going to be a hazard to our Country. It's not perfect system but it certainly is not a painful one either.

I offer this. If anyone was ever put into the position of having to defend himself (and his children) against an armed man (or men), how many would wish they also had a gun? Why wait until the day where find yourself spending the rest of your life wishing you had made the right choice sooner and owned a gun.

Hey Piers, didn't I just see you not long ago on a game show, you were like a judge or something? Some talent thing?

And now your a "news" guy? That's cool – MSNBC probably has a spot. Please leave CNN. You're pulling the network WAY left to the point that they're becoming a joke. Please leave. Even better, go to the BBC, so we will never have to hear your accent again.

first off i would like to point out that a vast majority of the mass shootings are done with firearms gotten in an illegal way. this means that background checks would not have stopped the shootings. do i have to repeat that? the new laws would HAVE NOT PREVENTED THE MASS SHOOTINGS. if you want to stop the shootings then take away the easy target cheat. put guards at schools and/or arm the teachers and responsible adults that can pass a concealed carry check. have you ever had one of those? research it sometime if you dare.
Mr Morgan is a tool. he is here to stir up the American people and cause chaos. he has been given this high profile talk show in which he talks and the guest must listen. you want more to think about? the laws that were in place in the 1990's were enough to stop the box cutters from getting on the planes of 9/11. laws have to be enforced. laws have to be FOLLOWED. criminals break the law. why would new laws stop them?
use your brain people.

So next time when a drunk driver kills multiple people, taking away everyone's drivers licenses would be justice? The fact that you can't see the party that wants real justice tells me that I'm wasting my breath trying to explain this to you.

As has been stated, background checks wouldn't have stopped any of these actions.

More importantly, the universal background check law, due to government agencies keeping a permanent record of the background check, would have led to a de facto registry. Registration allows confiscation.

Now, if you want to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights, then go through the proper channels: submit a bill to alter or repeal the 2nd Amendment, get a 2/3 supermajority vote in both the House and Senate, ensure the President will approve it, and get it ratified by majority votes in 38 states. Otherwise, step away from my rights.

As has been stated, background checks wouldn't have stopped any of these actions.

More importantly, the universal background check law, due to government agencies keeping a permanent record of the background check, would have led to a de facto registry. Reg!stration allows conf!scation.

Now, if you want to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights, then go through the proper channels: submit a bill to alter or repeal the 2nd Amendment, get a 2/3 supermajority vote in both the House and Senate, ensure the President will approve it, and get it ratified by majority votes in 38 states. Otherwise, step away from my rights.

I have seen numerous posts on this site regarding Mr. Morgan's belligerent behavior towards his guests, etc. and earlier today I saw one from a " Terry" regarding April 16th program. All that Mr. Morgan seems to do is give more time to those who have committed these serious gun crimes and bombings. I somehow find it amusing how he always blames the Republicans and the NRA for not getting anything done about gun control! This is the second time around that Mr. Reid has been unable to even get his own party to vote for anything regarding gun control. Besides the fact that a background check will not pick out those with a mental illness! Please just go home. Mr. Morgan, I am asking nicely. Calling senators names is a freedom you enjoy because you are in the United States, probably not even a legal citizen here! Maybe now the Senators will get together and deport your ass back to." Tea Land" where you will feel safer. You are like all the other immigrants coming in to the United States, you want to bring your laws and your opinions here and we do not want them!

" Typical American", someday you'll regret the fact that you did not exercise the right of the government a.k.a. the people of the United States to deport certain individuals! Your freedom to say and do as you please will be ruled by someone of another culture and I'm guessing that you will not be very happy about it! When this day comes, you will wish that you had a firearm or the ability to go back in time and make sure that what is considered " the American way of life." Was not encroached upon. I am open to any and all and their opinions, but somewhere the line has to be drawn as to what we will put up with. It's time you got educated on numerous topics so you can understand what is at stake, not just with the Second Amendment but so many other things, you obviously do not understand or comprehend. Just sit back and let people like Mr. Morgan, try to influence what occurs in a country that he does not really have an interest in, or anything on the line. He can pick up and move back to ." Tea Land" anytime he wants. We need an American to host the show who was not biased and is willing to discuss the news, not try to make news.

"We" don't want to hear thought? Right...speak for yourselves. This bill had the votes to pass. The 4 Demo's weren't needed. Once again it's the GOP's coward's way out to use the Filibuster that succeeded. The fault for that rests squarely with Harry "the Weak Link" Reid. He had the ability to put a stop to this for one day...and failed the nation doing nothing.

I am indeed,Mark,and I'll take not dying of scurvy over insults from you anyday(just the same back then–sounds like you're
scornful cos you're jealous of how good sailors we are:French AND Spanish thrashed by Nelson–best sailor on Seven
Seas–simultaneously,just sails the Victory up to the biggest galleon,and works his way down...

I'll stick with the lime juice,and you stick with xenophobia,'cos,like the Londoners,you excel at it,and Scotland will send you Bibles,Muir,Pinkerton,Smith,the Ivy League,Carnegie,Andy Murray(US Open Champion,lest we forget),while ruling
England for 22 years,and leaving it with 7 heirs unlike The Virgin Queen.

You found your way home with tail between legs just over two hundred years ago. I guess if that's what your claim to fame is fighting on the sea over other countries three ship navies...want to come over and see how superior any of forces might fair? I forgot we are the not Falklands, sorry!

I agree 100% with Piers.
As much as you Diane, David, Mark and the other gun lovers-Piers haters have the right to carry a gun , I have the right to be protected from crazy gun owners. One should not compromise the other. It is a simple background check.
And Carlee, I am so sorry for your lost and for all the negative people that you had to deal with. Hope things change soon.

Unfortunately, you guessed it wrong. I do not own one weapon other than maybe a hammer and a baseball bat. Do you honestly think that a background check is going to find out who has a mental illness? I have looked at the form, in my state and did not see one question regarding my mental capabilities or lack thereof. Two of my neighbors both female filled out the form and received the proper paperwork to purchase a weapon, all since Sandy Hook! I asked them to inquire with their perspective doctors if anyone called them regarding any thing that would prevent them from receiving a clearance. Neither one of their doctors have ever been contacted by any agency regarding their application. It is not just Mr. Morgan, that goes on at nausea regarding these issues, but he is part of the problem by continually giving these people airtime that committed the atrocities. And I will say it again, if you don't like it here, then go back to where you are from!

Where did I say that all gun owners are crazy? I am fully aware that there are a lot of normal people that want to have a gun. And no one is trying to interferon with this. But, there are a lot of people who should not have guns and we all, including you, should be protected from this people.

Actually, every gun law passed has tried to interfere with normal, law-abiding citizens who want to own firearms. And you're absolutely right; there are a lot of people who shouldn't have guns. But they get them. And this background check law wouldn't have stopped even one of them.

But you're right, we should all be protected from them. Now, my question to you is: how do you propose to do that? I have three separate answers for myself, each of them of high caliber, but I'm curious as to your answer.

One pattern always comes out of these mass murders, the law-abiding citizens are always unarmed or disarmed. I really feel that the blame should have been placed on why or who left the kids,at the Sandy Hook school, totally unprotected. It's similar to leaving children unprotected in the wilderness.

Gun-control laws, while well intentioned, disarm only law-abiding citizens. In the meantime the criminals totally ignore the laws. That is why when these mass killings happen the victims are unarmed while the criminals are armed to the teeth. As long as these "gun-control" or "crime-control" laws are made these types of tradgedies will continue to happen.

I think that families of the victims of the Sandy Hook school would be served better if they sued the school or whoever allowed the victims of Sandy Hook to be totally unprotected. That would force the schools to provide protection worthy of the president of the U.S.

Hi Steve. Which part of my reply did you have issue with? Obviously if you are calling me ignorant you have information I don't so please enlighten me. Or do you always resort to name calling when you can't come up with an intelligent response?

The part about suing manufacturers. That has been fought and lost (in the Supreme Court) already. And it's not the manufacturer's fault for what some idiot decides to do; just like it's not the auto manufacturer's fault for selling a car to the person who goes out and takes out a family in another car by running into them at high speed while illegally drag racing.

I think the lawyers in the country are rich enough without everyone being sue happy. Should the victims of the Boston Bombing be able to sue the pressure cooker maker? If you get stabbed should you be able to sue the knife company, if you get hit by a car can you sue the auto industry? If you trip over your own feet can you sue the shoe company or maybe the shoelace company? Every time someone gets hurt lawyers waste the courts time and make money, off our backs.

Tell you what, since he's not leaving – and if he did, he can still do the show from anywhere in the world – why don't you do us a favor and get the hell out of here yourself? You are a waste of American space.

"Thats the way to give what you know! No guessing!! Scare mongering creates too much info, and then it just
makes lies? Untruths more guess work. What happens then. Nobody says anything brcause they think?? What do I know!!!

Would she and Piers Morgan feel better if he had brought a bomb instead? The lession of Boston is that Evil exist and Laws don't stop it. Do they not realize that if a crazy person wants to do harm and to hurt as many people as possible they will. To make it harder for the legal purchase of guns and the first step in Gun Control was defeated and justly so. Should not the families of all people killed in Car crashes lobby for Laws against fast cars? Or Maybe Piers should look to saving lives by getting them to stop Abortion that Murders 3500 kids a day.

The only place I'd like to see Piers Morgan is on a plane heading back home to the UK for a permanent stay. I wonder how the British public would react if an American set up shop in their country and schooled them on how to run their affairs?

Piers stated something along the lines of the following last night: "If the death of 20-plus children will not move the Senate to act, what will?" Consider: the death of about 2,700 unborn children a day does not move anyone in Washington to act on curbing abortion. Juxtapose the two tragedies, and the different responses to each, and you'll get a good picture of what is wrong with us as a nation. 20-plus children being killed is a tragedy; I suggest 2,700 is a far greater one.

Mr. Morgan when can we expect your departure from our beloved soil? While I also want the violence to stop, we must address the cause's and not the tools used. We also must not violate the rights of those who have done nothing wrong. Do we now stop selling pressure cookers? or do we address the problem. If you fail to deport yourself, the world will know for certain that you sir are a LIER.

A bible has nothing to do with my opinion or feelings about Mr Morgan. To list his blatant lies about guns and crime alone would take me all day. He claimed he would self deport if we did not pass legislation. So if he fails to do so, it is simply just another LIE.

It's a disgusting shame! Despite vast majority of people favor background checks, even this bill was killed by the Senate. It's obvious that politicians on either side of the aisle just vote as they are getting paid by lobbies. What a victory for the NRA!

I notice AMERICAN GUN OWNER talk of his beloved soil;presumably he can see it tilled as he's just had to dig 19 graves for Sandy's Children,and discard the British child who I saw wearing a Spiderman suit and smiling,his teacher dying with him shielding him in her arms.He liked trampolines and chocolate,and wonder if he's even worthy of burial seeing as they
despise us so much,but I presume they put him somewhere.

I had a picture of a 3ft casket filling my laptop screen,white,in a mortuary,another 19 waiting to go,I wonder if our boy was inside,but maybe they just threw him in a hole.

You do realize that these teachers huddling the children together, then trying to shield them with their body made Lanza's task easier? Even if the teacher's body could magically stop bullets, it would not help. The kids would still be there with an armed madman, and now with no one to protect them.

Passive defense is inferior to active defense. The teachers could have stopped him before killing a single child: Hide the kids, lock the door, and wait by it. If he shoots the lock, as soon as he opens the door, ambush him. He likely led with the barrel, so grab it and yank straight away from him. It will leave his hands. Turn the gun on him, and either wait for the police or put him down if necessary.

There. 19 kids don't have to die. Even better, have armed personnel (veterans, perhaps) as guards for schools. These 19 kids died not because of "assault weapons," but because they were defenseless, and no one took an effective active defensive posture to prevent their deaths.

Piers - start a campaign to sell little green – or whatever color – ribbons or bracelets that the 99% can wear to show support for gun background checks. Let the voice of the Nation's majority be visible.

Ah,Dragon,you're back:how can you forget details like kids' faces peeling like bananas?I don't think anyone HAS ignored you
they just choose to look at things individually which is their prerogative,and I STILL don't know whose side you're on 'cos you haven't told me.

Pathetic and boring to see all the vitriol and hateful comments on what should be an intelligent debate amongst concerned people. The U.S.A. was built upon immigration and yet all these calls that people should leave the country if they have an opinion that differs from someone else? To me the debate over the usefulness of a bill is in its real impact in the lives of citizens. SO I came across an article in the Toronto Star which examined a case involving gun running between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario (Canada). What was absolutely clear is that criminals use loopholes in the law to further criminal activities. The existence of said loopholes does facilitate their crimes. So why would a law that closes those loopholes – loopholes that would in no manner impede on the second amendment rights of citizen – be so controversial? There is something very wrong with the USA when intelligent debate takes a back seat to childish insults and mindless, blind dogma like what is commonplace in posted commentary associated with gun control media.

The Toronto Star Article should anyone be interested in seeing how gun law loopholes impact criminal activities positively:

Sorry for the misunderstanding Tara. We're not being insensitive on this. Piers Morgan has been foaming at the mouth as a rabid dog over this whole gun control issue since it started; actually started when he took over from Larry King. Anyway, on his program, which is 7th in the ratings out of 5...that if Congress fails to pass a sensible (his definition meaning same as England – no guns) then he'd "self-deport" back to England. All we're doing is taking him up on his offer to keep him honest and avoid going back on a lie.

As to the article you link to Tara, there are already laws on the books for that. Passing new laws is not going to prevent it any better than existing laws, if like the existing laws, they aren't enforced.

You're Scottish,aren't you?Anywhere near Dunblane?You mention Glencoe,there's a lot of CNN viewers going there there hopefully–a sadness in those hills,majestic as they are–with it being voted top location in the world.I think we both want the same thing:for America not to suffer this again,but you've got to stop being such a pompous ass.

1st: Sorry that her sister lost her life to a Democrat communist.
2nd: Calee, your in grief and the fact being, the person that killed your sister would have still shot her. His mother would have passed the background checks.
3rd: Pierce when will you leave the US, yesterday I hope. Do not make us take up a protest to CNN. WE will.
4th. Obama wants a war over the 2nd Amendment, I want him out of office and hanging from a tree the traitorous POC

I'm disappointed in her lack of common sense. I would like her to tell me what law would have stopped the shooting of her sister. Even the politicians proposing the background check law stated it would have had no effect in any of the recent shootings.

At least it would have been a start, and would certainly have cut down many instances of domestic violence where a gun is used. It's not just about stopping mass shootings, it's the thousands of individuals killed each year.

The same can be said about alcohol-control and drinker background checks that you disagree, mayg.

At least it would have been a start, and would certainly have cut down many instances of domestic violence where alcohol is abused. It's not just about stopping drunk driving, it's the thousands of individuals killed each year.

Piers Morgan continues to mouth the incorrect and unsubstantiated figure of 90% regarding Americans who believe in increased background checks. Quite the opposite is true but he refuses to be limited by facts and repeatedly fans the emotional flames of this contentious issue. Piers, if you truly care about balanced reporting instead of subjective commentary, you can start with this Gallup Poll of just two days ago: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-only-4-americans-think-gun-control-important-problem

If you trust the government (not just the current government, but all the government we and our children will have in the future) not to abuse the individuals’ info. they get from the background checks and registry, why not give them our medical info. as well to know who among us have mental issues? Congress passed the “National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Act” in response to the Virginia Tech shooting. This law was to provide funding to the states to add mental health records into the FBI’s database. The ACLU, a progressive civil rights organization, threatened suits for privacy violations under the federal HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules if the states comply with this measure. Much as I want to prevent the dangerously mentally-ill from getting their hands on guns, I agree with the ACLU for protecting the individuals’ right to privacy. And the ACLU said a gun bill proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on March 22 mandating background checks could infringe on Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights.

The ACLU has "significant concerns" about the language of the bill, said Chris Calabrese, a privacy lobbyist with the ACLU. He said, when approved sellers use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, they destroy most of the obtained records within 24 hours, and all the records must be destroyed within 90 days. Reid's proposal doesn't have any such requirement for universal background checks when it comes to unlicensed gun sales.

Calabrese warned, “Unfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us. That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly. As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.”

I am not a math person but i see the average is about 30,000 deaths. No Guns are not a problem whats so ever.
I am not sure did the NRA come out after the Boston Bombing and say "See Guns Didn't Do This

Alex, what percentage of those deaths are gang violence? There goes 90% of your number. The problem is there is no big fight to stop the main problem involving guns. Actually they just lock them up, laugh about the chances of being a repeat offender and let them back on our streets.

Yes, and one recently was even a cop. So lets take guns from cops and suicides won't happen if we take guns away. I mean it's not like they can suffocate themselves with car fumes or hang themselves with rope, or overdose on prescription meds.

You're right oneluvsurfer, Guns are not the cause of suicide.
J@pan is virtually a gun-free country. However, in 2009, the number of suicides rose 2 percent to 32,845 exceeding 30,000 for the twelfth straight year and equating to nearly 26 suicides per 100,000 people. Go figure.

Okay, a suicide is still a horrible event (and it’s a whole different issue we should address) but at least it’s not taking other people’s lives. So, if you deduct suicide deaths, the number of gun victims is about 1/3 of that of car accidents. However, we are not outraged by car accidents, not nearly as much as about guns. Where is the outcry for stricter traffic laws, and shows after shows after shows talking about it?? Over 30,000 people die in automobile accidents every year and 2,000 of them are children!!

Alex, why don't you look up the number of deaths in the USA from red light and stop sign runners and how many injured. i'm willing to bet that all or most of these newtown parents demanding more gun control run red lights and stop signs with their kids in the car like its not a problem and their safety is not at risk.

mayg, You are forgetting the fact that guns also save lives. There aren’t many negative consequences from having stricter traffic laws. I can’t think of anyone’s life being threatened by severely punishing tailgaters, doubling fines for all offenses, or prohibiting the usage of cell phones. But if we implement stricter gun laws hastily, disregarding the fact that “guns also protect”, there are going to be people who will be harmed or even killed due to the lack of deterrent and defense methods.

Thanks Irene, of course I am well aware of that, but these proposed laws were only designed to deter guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people, not to stop all people from owning a gun. Would they have stopped all gun crime? Of course not. Would they have saved at least a few hundred lives? Absolutely. Would it have been worth it? Absolutely, even it was one single life. The intention was not to take away all guns, just to tighten restrictions. What could be wrong with that?

mayg, I guess you didn't read my post. This is what the ACLU said.
The ACLU has "significant concerns" about the language of the bill, said Chris Calabrese, a privacy lobbyist with the ACLU. He said, when approved sellers use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, they destroy most of the obtained records within 24 hours, and all the records must be destroyed within 90 days. Reid's proposal doesn't have any such requirement for universal background checks when it comes to unlicensed gun sales.
Calabrese warned, “Unfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us. That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly. As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.”

If you want to reduce unnecessary deaths, how about make it an offense to have a cell phone within the driver’s reach (just as open container laws), unless it is secured in a hands-free device? I for one think this is more effective in saving lives than gun-control.

Are you saying, thank God they had bombs instead?? What if they have a bigger bomb, or many more bombs next time??? Timothy McVeigh did not have a gun when he killed 168 people in Oklahoma, including 19 children!!!

I don't hate America,nothing of the sort,but sooner or later they have to face up to these stats instead of just coming out
with endless cod-justifications:Australia's done it,we've done it[lowest since 1989],and they can do it too,and we await
the arrival of a generous dear friend...

Gang related or not, IT IS CALLED Stats and NUMBERS
Please explain these other countries that have gun rules and not just Crazy USA 2nd amd people who love there guns
Are you telling me there is no corolation between # of guns and Deaths or are these fabricated numbers.

That's right. Just ignore the largest part of the violence so you can continue with your personal agenda no matter if your arguments make sense or not. I don't hear any republicans out that refusing to admit that we have a gang and illegal gun problem.

Have to get a flight from Glasgow;wouldn't be able to get my dirk through metal-detector[£300,Perth,near Dunblane].

Do you have night vision?

Can you see me?

A Highlander in the dark,model for SAS,set up Jock McLean,regularly train Americans(as do the Black Watch)'cos they're
just not as good,and like you,when they arrive,couldn't beat an egg.But we render them warrior.One hit,one kill.

The U.K. is practically at undeveloped nation levels when it comes to violent crime. Now, go ahead and take a look at violent crime in Switzerland, Germany, and France (3rd, 4th, and 5th in gun ownership rate). Go on. I'll wait.

Now, as far as deaths are concerned, let's take gun homicides worldwide for the last hundred years. Every time someone unlawfully killed another (and wars don't count, as they're technically legal). Taking an average, about 10,000,000 people have been unlawfully killed by another person with a firearm over the last century. That's a fair amount.

However... just out of curiousity, let's take a look at how many people have been killed by their own elected government over the last century... well, over less than a decade, the National Socialist regime in Germany killed about 12,000,000 people unlawfully... The United Soviet Socialist Republic killed about 20,000,000 over about 80 years... The People's Republic of China have killed about 50,000,000, most under Mao Zedong... A few hundred thousand killed each by a variety of governments in Africa, South America, and East Asia... All in all, the total comes to about 200,000,000.

Tesla,Tesla,Tesla,kids aren't getting shot in strollers,in their father's arms in cars,two people shot in a trailer park in Texas for complaining about dog dirt,a guy on here few weeks back,Steve Ord,in a hotel in Connecticut having his entire family threatened to be shot by the guy below 'cos his kids are running around,family of five in Georgia(trailer park again ,I've lived in them,they suck,but never felt like shooting anyone).These crimes SIMPLY AREN'T HAPPENING WITH US AND
i DON'T WANT THEM TO HAPPEN WITH YOU.I don't think the US is a bad country,it's just having trouble.

Tesla,it's about the mitigation of murder,all of it.And now kids.Twenty Candles.

The plain truth is, Tesla, is that whilst 'violent crime' may be high, it doesn't result in death anywhere near as often as in the U.S. Why? BECAUSE NOT AS MANY PEOPLE HAVE GUNS!!!! If I'm going to be a victim of violent crime, I'd rather be alive afterwards, not dead thank you very much, so stop making 'violent crime' sound that same as homicide. It isn't, and I'm sick of that stupid argument being put forward.

I like how you look at the violent crime aspect, and not at the 200,000,000 people killed by government subjugation.

The trick about almost all of the examples you gave was that they were criminals. The baby shot in the face by a teen (who is not legally allowed to have a firearm), the baby killed in her father's arms (in a gang hit, with a handgun, in Chicago, where handguns are illegal), all of them.

In a New Orleans prison, violent offenders gained access to handguns. That is insanely illegal. But they can get them. Illegal firearms will be obtained due to bad people willing to make a buck. Background checks will not stop that. When our own government sells military weapons – TRUE MILITARY WEAPONS, such as M16 assault rifles and M60 machine guns – to vicious Mexican drug cartels, I'm not really in favor of them trying to keep track of mine.

As stated before: If you want to violate a const!tutional right, follow the process. Otherwise, back off.

Oh well ... Just let everyone have a gun even the mentally disturbed and kill each other! Who cares?! What I don't understand is how come background check in gun stores are enforced but not in private / online selling ? Should that not be in general whenever you purchase a gun?

I want to know if World War 3 starts with or against the USA, Would everyone who has a GUN or Multiple Guns 270,000,000 in this case, sign up to join the USA Military. Probally not, they will run and hide under a rock
an be scared little cowards

What if WW3 started on our own soil? You ridiculous dems would be sitting there holding your #$%@%^ and we would be loading up to defend our country 100% You guys can just tell the invading country that you don't believe in guns so they should lay theirs down.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial J@panese Navy during WWII understood that America was impregnable. And that’s because of many civilian gun owners!!

Pearl Harbor didn't.Phew,you took a pounding,dude,I've seen the[color]footage[and Iwo Jima where you fought better with jet of flame].British the best:we gave you radar,you ignore it–a 'Limey' invention,like the Internet–and the last thing that captain and many an innocent trusting man saw was the mouth of a blue shark,his buddies hearing him scream in a high-pitch.Shameful.

You have been found wanting.Your arrogance undermines you.Twenty Candles.

Actually, Pearl Harbor was meant to be an int!m!dation strike, in an attempt to scare the "weak-willed" Americans into not defending the Pacific against the J4panese. It failed, as they failed to cripple our navy, and we proceeded to bomb the everloving f*** out of J4pan, while we slowly marched across the islands they had conquered, l!berating them. All this while taking a large part in the Western Front of the war in Europe. Yamamoto also recommended against the Pearl Harbor attack; up until that point, the U.S. was fairly neutral to all of these events. He stated that J4pan would be "waking a sleep!ng giant," and they most certainly did.

Ban assault rifles.Smashing way in with rifle butts like we did the Wehrmacht,helmet the lot 'cos bayonets stick in ribs,
streetfighters teaching conscripts soon as they arrive Western Front.Banned after Dunblane,no attacks in 17 years.

You'll be lucky to go a month.

And it might ALL be Americans,no British lads slaughtered in your overrated country wearing a Spiderman suit and smiling,his teacher attempting to shield him.He liked trampolines and chocolate,and he was innocent.

I believe you're responding to the radar comment; if not, please elaborate on your statement.

The U.S., the Soviet Union, the U.K., Germany, and a host of other countries all developed their own radar systems – in secret – prior to World War II. This was done in secret to maintain an edge against attacking enemy forces. The reason the radar didn't help much in Pearl Harbor was due to the sheer size of the attacking force; that many planes clustered together looked more like a weather pattern than an air strike.

Come on Mr. high and mighty. Live up to your word and get off my television and get your liberal mind out of my great country. Remember it was those like you we left behind in the old country in the first place.

Heard an interview a few years back with a chap a little boy at the time playing with his chums near the Harbor,and they looked up to see the Zeroes coming in.Had that image ever since.Recommend 'Empire Of The Sun' by JG Ballard[grew up in Shanghai].

I don't know about the republican pty, the democratic pty or the tea pty, what we need is a "WE THE PEOPLE PTY" a party that does what "WE THE PEOPLE" who voted for them and pay their salary, life medical and pensions, want. 90% of THE PEOPLE want tighter gun laws, I don't know how you senators who voted No sleep at night I hope you are haunted by the hundreds of victims of gun violence but especially 20 little children who will never grow up to vote for you, and enjoy your last term in office because come the next election you will no longer be in a position to say NO
And we support you Piers keep up the good work

Yes we will and hopefully it will be a new era in democratic government, wouldn't it be nice if there was no special interest involvement in electing our representatives and those elected by the people worked for the people

Thank you mayg
having lived in Africa for 15 yrs I have seen first hand what happens when life becomes cheap and the rule of law is determined by those with AK 47's certainly not something you would want to see in a educated society.

Maz, give me one good reason why these people shouldn't have those guns.
(These things can happen even in a educated society in America.)

1. People who live near the Mexican border in order to protect themselves against Mexican gangs. Police could take a half hour to arrive, so how would you hold them off with just 10 bullets, if there are multiple assailants with more than 10 bullets in each of their guns? (FYI: criminals don’t follow the law.)

2. People who want to be prepared if their town should go into anarchy after a catastrophic disaster. We can’t always count on our government as we all saw in Katrina.

Hi MAYG, I like all Americans am an immigrant, unlike most Americans we waited 18 yrs for a legally obtained green card
And finally arrived in the USA in 2005 and feel privileged to have the right to live here, ( just some background ) below is a letter I sent to a friend just after Sandy Hook, perhaps all Americans weather born here or not should take the citizenship test.
Hi Rosemary
I spent most of the weekend crying, John is pressing me to complete the forms for USA citizenship, then this absolute horror happens and I seriously
wonder if I want to be a citizen to a country that can be so complacent.

Going through the learning and as you know John and I will probably know more than most americans by the time we finish, I am puzzled by most peoples interpretation of the 2nd amendment, "A Right to bear arms in an organized Militia" to me does not mean every willy nilly person, when this was written it was a very different country , americans were fighting the French, the british and the Indians in a Wild west Style with no regular Army.
We now have wonderful people like your grandson that are in the most powerful Armed forces in the world who protect all the citizens of the country here at home and abroad, we have an armed police force, so how can people justify the argument that they need weapons for protection.
To me a Militia is a group of men/women who when at war and the army is away take over to protect the Local population something Like "DAD's Army Home Guard" we had in the war at home in the UK . The guns are stored in an Armory and only issued if and when the need arrises.
Also Amendment means changed or added to, so is it not time to amend the amendments that in the 21st/22nd century are really no longer applicable.

Yesterday on Piers Morgan a member of the NRA said that the Type of Assault weapon used this past weekend are "FUN" I thought Piers Morgan was going to punch him straight in his stupid face and in fact I was screaming at the TV for him to do so. I understand that there are people who enjoy hunting but what kind of sportsman shoots an animal with a weapon that shoots armor piercing bullets at 100 rounds a minute? And if it's not for Hunting then what the Hell does a person who is not in Afghanistan need one for.

On sunday Morning I opened the ad pages of the paper and Walmart had a half of a page of Guns on special offer " why can you go to Walmart to buy a gun.

I guess a total gun ban will never happen, but why cant we have a database of ownership add it to the Driving License Info, have gun shops run by a government agency and not allow anyone to open one, stop the gun shows that are like fun fairs, to me gun ownership is not Fun it is a serious thing that can have life changing effects.

In conclusion i am left this week with my head swimming with so Many "WHY's

As the Holidays approach, Hug your Kids and Grandkids tighter, for once I am glad mine are far away, because in this crazy country you never know when will be the last time you see them.

Dear Mr. Morgan, you are person of unremarkable interest, and your opinions are entirely revolting. Your views are that of a flaccid, weak old man. And if you do not keep your promise to return to your country, you will be forever ridiculed as a liar. I will personally never let you forget it. I wonder what you will do for a job when and if you do keep your word and return home. I doubt there are many there who would welcome a disgraced person of unremarkable interest, such as yourself.

Are you the same Mark from earlier on bandying around LIMEY on the Blog?I thrashed him in a verbal duel 'cos he didn't have cunning or sarcasm 'cos he's American,and doesn't understand through not being even remotely intelligent as us.

So disappointing that these measures weren't considered – the only impact these measures would have had on most people would have been to increase their own safety by making it more difficult for those who shouldn't have guns to obtain them.

It sickens me that people can't provide a rational argument against tighter gun laws, and yet they still can't get through because of the power of the NRA.

All you people dead-against gun control don't realise the NRA has you exactly where they want you. They've managed to completely brainwash you, to make you oppose laws that would increase the safety of every American, just so that their gun sales stay high. I'm sick of people going on about the 2nd Amendment, like it's not at all open to interpretation.

You wanna save lives?? How about stricter alcohol control then? Not to mention alcohol-related violence, DUIs cause more deaths than guns. How about we change the law to require all drinkers (including occasional to moderate ones) be registered as an alcohol user and have a sticker as such on their car license plates, and give highway patrol officers the authority to pull them over anytime to have them take a breathalyzer test?
Oh, and background checks every time anyone buys alcohol to make sure the buyer doesn’t have a history of alcohol/substance abuse. By the way, the cost of the registry and background checks should be shared by all the drinkers including responsible ones. Why aren’t you screaming “alcohol control”??

Um, because there are already laws about driving intoxicated, public drunkenness, limiting the serving of alcohol to intoxicated people and so on. American people accept these restrictions as reasonable and necessary for public safety. And if this excessive alcohol use resulted in violence and a history of mental illness THESE BACKGROUND CHECKS COULD PREVENT HIM FROM BUYING A GUN. Why harp on alcohol when the only purpose of guns is to kill?

Um, because there are already laws about killing innocent people, mass shootings, limiting the access of guns to felons and so on.

“American people accept these restrictions as reasonable and necessary for public safety.”
It’s not reasonable enough to me if alcohol is killing over 10K a year.

These background checks for drinkers could prevent him from driving drunk, getting in a fight, abusing family members and children and hey maybe drunk-shooting too. Why harp on guns when the only purpose of alcohol is to get drunk and possibly do something stupid?

“the only purpose of guns is to kill”... Guns are designed to “incapacitate” predators, either enraged animals or criminals or mad men, yes, by sometimes killing them, but unfortunately in some cases, that is THE ONLY WAY you can stop them from killing YOU.

DUI casualties 9,878
+
Thousands of serious injuries are reported every year related to domestic violence, assault and other alcohol related aggressions. Data from the United States suggests that about 30% of assaults involve alcohol (without other drugs) and 40 to 50% of violent crimes involve alcohol or a combination of alcohol and drugs.

We definitely need tighter restrictions on alcohol than on guns. I don’t know why those who scream about SAVING LIVES ignore alcohol-related problems and just pick on guns.

Dear Piers: Thank you for bringing attention to gun violence. I am sickened by all these paranoid gun freaks, as well as members of Congress who rejected expanded background checks and proposed bans on some semi-automatic weapons designed for our military. I hope all of you will be voted out of your comfy jobs for being cowards, for failing the families who lost loved ones in senseless shootings. How many of you would have stood in the line of fire like the teachers at Sandy Hook in an attempt to save innocent children? I think all of you would have run for your lives. I think you should be forced to sit in a room and look at photos of the crime scene where baseball-sized holes riddled the bodies of babies. Why would anyone reject expanded background checks? Do you have criminal records? Are you mentally ill? Why do you need semi-automatic weapons? How many rounds does it take to kill a deer? If you can't do it with a shotgun maybe you should take up bowling. Because of people like you, Americans look like a bunch of rednecks with white KKK sheets hidden in the back of our closets. You're so worried about your 2nd amendment rights? What about the rights of children? I have seen what a 6 year-old looks like in a coffin. Despite your stupidity, I pray that you never have to see your own child lying in one with holes in his/her head. Shame on all of you!

Get your history straight Charlotte. It was the NRA who organized to protect southern blacks from the KKK (democrats associated with McGovern) and because of the NRA, the blacks rights to protect themselves were put in place, and preserved.

Ha Dana, Well done for helping the leaders of the NRA get even richer. Your support boosts gun sales, which is all they want. They don't give a damn about you, or your 'right' to have a gun. And they sure as hell don't care about your safety. Money really well spent.

HEY MAY G , THOSE LAWS WOULDNT HAVE MADE ANYBODY SAFER, AND THE NRA DOESNT SELL GUNS, THEY SELL MEMBERSHIPS, OBAMA SELLS GUNS , BY THE MILLIONS, SOME ARE SOLD FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS, MOST ABOUT 2 YEARS, AND BY THE WAY, GREAT MEMORY , YOU ALMOST STATED WORD FOR WORD, THE PROPAGANDA THAT CNN HAS BEEN SPEWING ON THIS SUBJECT, NOW THE TRUTH , OLD MEN THAT COLLECT GUNS GOT TO THE GUN SHOWS TO BUY GUNS, DONT BELIEVE ME, GO TO ONE SEE WHOS THERE. CRAZY PEOPLE AND CRIMINALS BUY GUNS FROM THE BLACK MARJKET , ALWAYS HAVE ALWAYS WILL, SO GROW UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE AND GO WHINE AND WET THE BED ELSEWHERE, THE MEN HAVE SPOKEN AND THE SUBJECT ON GUN CONTROL IS CLOSED,

Dana, you are obviously incredibly immature and incapable of rational argument, so you resort to insults and nonsense. Gun manufacturers and sellers are huge supporters of the NRA. They're only interested in gun sales and it's their propaganda, their insistence that Obama wants to take away your rights that lead to increases in gun sales. Look at it sensibly and try to stay calm and consider – who has the most to gain by winning this argument? CNN or the NRA? The CNN reports facts, as one of the most respected news organisations in the world. The NRA spews propaganda and is largely ridiculed and despised the world over. It is like a cult, and you are obviously one of its disciples.

By the way, an Avtomat Kalishnikova Model 1947 is not a sub-machine gun. It is a rifle. A sub-machine gun is a select-fire weapon chambered in pistol calibers. If it were a sub-machine gun (or even a true AK-47, not a semi-automatic civilian knockoff), it would be ludicrously illegal, as automatic firearms require a significant background check, regular updates, and near a full ATF inspection.

I called MARK TWAIN sagacious,but he didn't sink the Bismarck and Tirpitz,saving your east coast from falling off like the
Sandy Hook Atrocity!And where's YOUR plane as good as the Spitfire?The Mustang?

AAAYH THERE SEEMS TO BE A VERY SEVERE SMELL OF CRUMPETS AND TEA , ME THINKS HERE TONIGHT, AND THE MUSTANG PLANE WAS THE BEST OF THE WAR, AFTER IT RECIEVED THE MERLIN ENGINE, FROM ROLLS ROYCE, HOWEVER I AM TOLD, DONT WANT TO TANGLE WITH A TOMCAT OR A FALCON,OR THAT BROWN BESSE , COURSE MINE DOONT SHOOT, SEEMS I LOST ME RAMROD,

Background checks do not protect CRIMINALS and THE MENTALLY ILL from NOT GETTING GUNS!!!! THIS BACKGROUND CHECK is for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, not CRIMINALS. They are Criminals, and will not follow ANY law. They will get there weapons as they always do, from the black market. There already has been background checks for gun shop. IT DOES NOT STOP THE CRIMINALS ROM GETTING THEM!- You know, like Crack, and Coke is illegal, but hey people still get them right... because its still being sold. They don't go to an open market. Law abiding citizens have no problem with if you want to take the criminals away, but this not a solution's. Stricter laws should be put in place. If you do not have a gun registered, and get caught, boom, 5 years felony. If you use the gun in a crime, bam, 15 to 20 years. If you put these laws in place, people who have there guns legally are not worried, cause they use their gun in a proper use. If you are responsible, you would have your gun registered, and have the paper works showing it. Criminals will not register ( as they never would cause why...? THEY ARE CRIMINALS!!!!!!! You do the crime you do the time law. I guarantee, there will be a lot less crime if there were harsher laws put in place for them!

Lot of good points,Gina(think I recognise your name.Have you posted before?).You're absolutely right:first on Black Market,it's gonna be deluged for years;especially given that,Stop&Frisk[Stop&Search in UK;writing from Edinburgh]would be the way to go,and no doubt a can of worms:who do you search?Which criteria do you go by?It's the best system though as things stand,frequently used in London,and constant allegations black people are stopped more:but it's Home Office powers,and it continues regardless,and I don't doubt they seize many knives as a result.The 5-year tarriff for possession is very pertinent:in Scotland,relatively new legislation from Holyrood(just down the road)stipulates 5 years for POSSESSION,just like you suggest,and separate legislation for England&Wales from Westminster:not sure on
length of sentence,but not as strict as Scotland,though still a case of being up that creek if a bobby catches you with one.It's the way to go,I think:Newtown is a watershed ergo we have to do something,Thanks for posting.

Don't build another tower,save me from the boring people babbling on about grammar;have you seen up top a bit?
Sorry they're scattered,but sometimes I hit reply button to others nearby:you a fan of Mr Tesla,then?

Nikola Tesla was a brilliant visionary. So, yes, I am a fan of his ideas and works. He's pretty much my favorite person ever, followed closely by Howard Phillips Lovecraft and John Moses Browning.

On to other things. I do appreciate intelligent conversation, but do please try to reply to the original statement. Otherwise the conversation becomes very hard to follow. Thank you for trying to maintain a civil tone, though. I truly appreciate that.

all men are created EQUAL, with certain unalienable rights that are not to be infringed...innocent before PROVEN guilty...background checks, and kneejerk solutions based on emotionalism is not a valid reason to infringe upon rights.

7 years ago I was robbed and forced to lay face down then shot in the the head, lucky to survive and very much against any form of new gun control. Look into the eyes of someone right before they shoot you and you will know they would still bring evil to this world and find it much easier if they did not have to worry about armed citizens.

I don't think these people actually want these laws passed. I think they want this in RETURN for the loss of their loved ones. They just want these laws changed BECAUSE their loved one died and they want something in return.

Common Sense,
Which one(s) of the mass shootings was prevented if stricter laws for background checks had been passed earlier? Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that background checks can only find out if the purchaser has a felony conviction or not, and not the mental illness he may have...

I highly doubt that. Congress passed the “National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Act” in response to the Virginia Tech shooting. This law was to provide funding to the states to add mental health records into the FBI’s database. The ACLU, a progressive civil rights organization, threatened suits for privacy violations under the federal HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules if the states comply with this measure. If the recent bill for extended background checks allows our medical records to be looked into, the ACLU must have said something about it. Common Sense, give us proof of what you said.

Interesting that this law not passed would not have stopped the shooting of her sister.

That, and have you noticed how the media reports this as if there are currently no background checks with this law failing. There are currently background checks. This would add to background checks to gun shows and private sales, etc.

I know they talk about the gun show loophole, but with this particular situation they've dropped all language referencing the loopholes and report as if without this law there are NO back ground checks, and report as if opponents are against any and all background checks.

Hey Drago,Ronnie The Redneck who you seem to like but is indubitably just a wolf in sheep's clothing said the USA put the kibosh on totalitarian Communists,but Mao killed millions,so Ronnie The Redneck's been taking the wish-fulfillment pills again!

Looking forward to beating them at golf again in the Land 'twas invented,just keep them guns at home.

Or it's the rubber glove from HM Customs!Or sent packing!(Even better!Too many Yanks in Edinburgh!)

Honestly if 90% of the population supported a back ground check wouldn't the senate have voted for it, the 90% that Obama and everyone else is quoting cannot be real numbers, it is a political tout that is baseless. I don't support guns in the hands of the mentally sick or criminals, but do you honestly think that they are going to buy their guns in a legitimate way? Harsher and automatic sentences for those selling a gun to one of these individuals is one key. The bits and pieces that I have watched of Morgan is that he is an arguative, non sincere, promote anger person, seemligly saying anything to get ratings in America, not worth my time.

All of this stuff about background checks and other regulatory acts is irrelevant. They are political sleight-of-hand designed to distract us from the central issue regarding large-magazine automatic weapons. The only thing we need to know is staring us right in the face. It doesn't matter who has used these weapons in the mass murders of children and young people in high school and college. It doesn't matter why they did it. It doesn't even matter how they got hold of these weapons. They carried out these murders because the guns exist and are in people's hands and they shouldn't be. These are weapons of mass destruction. They are just like hand grenades. You don't even have to aim them. I believe the President should quit trying tom appease those in Congress who are so afraid of the NRA, which has outright lied to the American public again and again. He should ban these large-magazine automatic as weapons of mass destruction. He is a president in his last term. He has nothing to lose by doing the right thing. The rest of us have everything to lose if he doesn't.

Tim the President cant just ignore the Senators and make legislation, because like the legal gun owners the President must obey the law. I do wonder this though being a legal gun owner myself and many of my fellow gun owners aren't completly against background checks. some of the aspects of the bill that was shot down did have some good in it, but remember this just like Obama care the parts of the bill that are laid out in the paper and on tv arent always what the Senators are voting on. I have not read the full bill so I wonder what crap may have been added in that we dont know about. We all know it todays politics you cant just have a simple 1 line bill and vote on it. If you want a bill on background checks to pass make it just that and vote. cut and dry. Dont add Semi- automatic rifles with 15 round magazines and a federal registry so we can honor the Un arms treaty.

No i am not a freemason.
If the government wanted to get guns out of the hands of bad guys and save us all, why dont they start with the simple things like have judges that actually sentence violent criminals when they get locked up the first time or second or third time to jail. Ive seen countless violent criminals get a hold of ilegal guns and commit crimes and get caught just to have a liberal judge or DA to allow a plea bargain or minimal jail time. Most cop killers in the city of new york have been arrested numerous times prior. Food for thought

Common Sense
A pressure cooker in the hands of a crazy man becomes a bomb, used as a IED by extremists on occassion but also a technologically advanced tool to cook food.
An AR-15 in the hands of a crazy man on occassion used to kill people, but is also a technologically advanced tool for hunting, do to its light weight and ease on the hunter to carry through woods replacing in some instances the bolt action rifle.

Both can be used to kill, but both are technological advancements in other fields.

Using common sense whats the common denominator here= the crazy person wishing to do harm to innocent people. With that knowledge you come up with your own reform bill .

I think everyone posting here agrees on one thing, that mental health is an issue in our country and that bill that would help the people who suffer and hopeful can help them before they do harm to someone or themselves would be good for our country.
Its amazing how on a forum we can accomplish more than polticians

Anyone reading please remember cause I take offense to this. The NRA is not some devil organization made up of people who want to shoot everything with their guns.
I am an NRA member and many of my friends and family are also. we are an organization of over 5 million Americans and climbing. Made up of cops, fireman, teachers, business man, mechanics, etc.. your friend, your neighbor, maybe your family member. The NRA lobbyist are not making up their own agenda and pushing it on politicians, their doing what politicians shouldd be doing. Listening to the people they work for and defending them. So I ask you this the rescent gun bill was voted down, did any of you intolerant people who think that your view is right and know one else could possibly have anything good to say else every think that maybe some politicians are voting against the gun bill because the people they represent want them to. Personally out of every person I know only 1 believes that bill is good. So Im trying to figure out how the media is telling me that the majority of Americans want this.

Well considering you are a member of the NRA, that would explain why only 1% of people you know dont like the bill designed to help keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. I have a completely different percentage than you do.

I guess I am one of the 10 percent that was not asked my opinion. Current laws are fine if they are enforced. Lower capacity magazines not an option. AR(stands for Armalite Corp-not assault rifle)-15 is a rifle of choice where I live. With mountain lion, bobcats, rattlesnakes, coyotes and two legged varmints I want a wide range of weapons and plenty of ammo. I believe CNN should check the history books and realize we won our independence from the British. I will not watch Morgan. He does not like our country, culture or laws. it's time to replace him with an American. By the way I am a 65 year old grandmother who protects my family daily as a law abiding concealed carry holder.

Bev,appreciate you getting in touch,but yet again we have gun afficionadoes dragging up 18th Century history:the Empire is a red herring,and not even pertinent.We don't HAVE one.

On the AR -15:1.I don't care what the acronym stands for:Adam Lanza fired 140 hollow points at YOUR kids and ours,
and they should NOT be available to citizens.They just stick 'em in boxes.2.The second letter is "R".

Twenty Candles,and there is more than one way to kill reptiles and vermin and wild animals if threatening.

@Dragons:
Watch for the real gun sales occuring. True military firearms sold to the Mexican Zetas Cartel by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobbaco and Firearms as part of a sting operation that saw almost none of the weapons recovered. 1.6 billion .40 Smith & Wesson Hollow-Point rounds purchased for the Department of Homeland Security. Police becoming militarized with high-end vehicles and weaponry.

You can choose to not trust the NRA, but I trust career politicians even less.

The gun bill should be federally dropped and left to the states to decide. Who are we to tell a man who lives in a rural part of American who needs a gun for his defense and hunting while out in the wood trying to provide for his family to survive the winter that he can only use a certain gun or a certain amount of rounds or he has to get a license and a background check to own his gun. In some areas of our country the nearest supermarket could be 100 miles away. Have you every had a bear charging you and its your life or his and the President says you can only have 10 rounds to hit him or sucks for you. we live in a land of freedom where we the people are free to decide whats right and whats wrong for ourselves, and hopefully we make our decisions responsibly. If the people of Connecticut feel that the best thing for them to prevent another school shooting is to ban all guns then so be it. Thats their choice. At least I can have the option to not live in Connecticut. But to tell me the land of the free that President will tell me what I can and cant do to protect my family. Thats not America and I dont want to have to leave my country to find freedom like my ancesters did when they fled their countries to come to America.

Brainwashing doesn't seem to fit here. There are a few gun rights advocates who rant and rave, but there are just as many on the other side. For example...

Name one thing that the police have done that inspires trust; I will be able to counter with multiple examples from multiple nations showing abuse of power. Name one thing the government has done that inspires trust; I can counter with the systematic stripping of our rights through unlawful or unconst!tutional means.

It's not brainwashing to understand and respect a firearm for the tool it is. It is brainwashing to think that a group of people you have given power too will not abuse that power.

Common sense,
Not all of the people I know or talk with have the same views completly as I do, and not all are fellow NRA members.
Please know Im not posting to push a pro gun agenda, I just comment to hopefully let people know not every NRA member is what you may perceive them as. I agree that gun violence is an issue in this country but I dont think this current legislation will even put a dent in the neighborhoods that Im familiar with. Gang violence and illegal guns are the weapons that are killing our youth in the ghetto neighborhoods that Im familiar with in New York I see it everyday at work. Unfortunately telling a Bloods member he has to get a background check before he can purchase a gun, (Im pretty sure youll hear some laughter)

P.S. I will still defend to my death with my gun in hand to defend your freedom to believe what you believe whether I agree or not. Please continue to have educated and open minded conversions involving this issue so we all learn something.

Thanks common sense,
Exactly part of my point. Do you call me an idiot because you dont believe what I believe? Im 31 years old and obviously more tolerant than you. So you can continue to think Im an idiot but I hope one day you use your Common Sense and realize that gets you know where in life. Now I know why your on Pierce Morgans site, Because like you if you disagree with him instead of listenine to what the other person has to say you right them off as an extremist nut and call them names. Good luck with that. GOD BLESS

Dan, I’m impressed with your response to the poster who lacks in common sense (ironically to his user name). I think you handled the name-calling with such poise and class. And I just wanted to say that I feel lucky to have a firefighter who is disciplined such as yourself. Thank you very much for what you do, and your willingness to put yourself in harm’s way for saving lives every single day. Thank you, sir, indeed.

Irene,he's an NRA Robot who'll get your kids killed:there is NO MENTION WHATSOEVER on the NRA website of Sandy
Hook,Newtown,Connecticut,and they need stopping–they are Winston Smith NOT putting stories in the papers.

George Orwell [1984] is WARNING us about people JUST LIKE THEM before he dies of tuberculosis.

In,I think,his first post–and if you scroll up you can read for yourself and my[on behalf of us]response–he is SUBTLY
THREATENING,probably trying to cow us.Fat chance.

1984 was a warning about government gaining too much control, encouraged by constant warfare against changing enemies (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and now Chechnya) which is made possible through false-flag attacks, propaganda, and misinformation, causing the people to grow fearful for their personal safety and to surrender their rights away one at a time, leading to surveillance in every home (internet bugging, wiretapping), as well as on the street (CCTV cameras, drones). This lead first to disarming of the people for the "security" of the nation, followed by a slow neutering as money, possessions, and even lives are taken by the government because they can, and no one can stop them.

"this bill would of prevented another tragedy like newton.." which part of universal backround checks would prevent someone from murdering his mother(already against the law), stealing her firearms(already against the law), bringing firearms on school grounds (already against the law) and murdering 20+ men women and children(already against the law) and then committing suicide (already against the law). Which part of the bill would prevent any of that?

Senate bill s. 649. Pcs in simpler terms states that every state must set up an electronic system that keeps up to date records of anyone ran through the NICS program which means if you purchase a gun you are run through the program that fine, but whether your accepted or denied your information must be saved and forwarded to the attorney general in a timely fashion. This is a secret way of having a gun registry without having one. This is a good reason for why the bill was voted down. You can look the bill up online its not a simple cut and dry bill to have universal background checks theres more to it

Piers can stay as long as he continues to push his agenda which I whole-heartedly agree with. A background check to purchase a gun is not to much to ask a person to do to get said gun. All I ever hear is the "good guys" need guns to protect themselves. While I agree with this sentiment do you really need 310 million guns to protect yourselves? Lapierre stated "the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." Tell that to the nine people shot in the Empire State Shootout. The good guys only managed to hit 9 innocent bystanders. You can call for my deportation, but since I am Anish i was here before you, so you go back to where you came from.

In the light of recent events,and being better apprised of the atrocity of terrorism,please go at some point to latest page,
and one preceding[click Back to main,and go from there]:USAF,IRA,where we go from here...Thank You.

- I can't believe this. This is just another case of liberal media using emotion to help put another irrelevent feel good law in place. Guns don't kill people...people kill people...its like sayin that a car is responsible for a drunk driving accident when the driver is at obvious blame...Criminals will always get guns but putting restrictions on law abiding citizens will only increase the susceptibility of more terror. I believe that most citizens should carry a gun. The more guns that law abiding citizens have the better. If some crazy nut goes out of control, people can protect themselves instead of relying on the police. Lastly, no one should believe Obama when he says that 90% of people supported his gun control law because that is a straight up lie and I believe Americans are smart enough to sense all the hot air coming out of his mouth.

The fact that the background check bill was voted down by the senate is proof that the system works. It shows that Obama isn't all powerful and doesn't get everything he wants. This may sound harsh, but the people who were closely affected by the Sandy Hook shooting have opinions that don't count. They are too close to a mass shooting and are simply biased. Mass shootings are very rare and most of us will never be shot at all in our lives. Someone like Gabby Giiffords calling for gun control is like a plane crash survivor calling on the banning of airplanes. Mass shootings are far too rare for there to be any need for drastic reform.

If that isn't complacent...we're all looking over our shoulder when we should be looking to our future in such a
splendid nation.THERE ARE TOO MANY GUNS OUT THERE,and with the panic-buying and manufacturers dealing
with backlogs(3 shifts available at Smith&Wesson)we could be approaching HALF A BILLION!

Yes, mass shootings are actually far too rare...
Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said chances of being killed in a mass shooting are probably “no greater than being struck by lightning.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-article-1.1221062

I hear the argument from those who demand stricter gun-control that the bill for universal background checks is supported by 90% of Americans, and then I hear another argument from the same people that the senators who voted against the bill were only concerned about the next election and did not do the right thing... but don’t those two arguments contradict each other? If the senators thought the majority of his const/tuents wanted the bill to pass and they felt compelled to cater to them in order to keep their jobs, why didn’t they vote for the bill? It has to be either the majority of Americans weren’t in favor of the bill and those senators were representing the majority’s view, or they voted against it risking their reelection because of their convictions... You can’t have it both ways.

Another thing is that, how many of those 90% of Americans actually know what’s in the bill in detail? I don’t know how the poll was conducted, but if one was asked a question such as “Are you in favor of background checks for gun purchasers?” Most would say yes, don’t they? The question that needed to be asked was, “Are you in favor of the recent gun-control bill sponsored by Sen. Harry Reid?”

Considering there are roughly 150 million registered voters in this country (and more than half of them are Dems), it is not a convincing theory that the NRA with its 4.5 million members (only 3% of the registered voters) can entirely influence the senators and call the shots. It is the other(non-NRA member) gun owners (estimated 80 million total) that the senators are concerned about, and they reflected what the majority of the voters think.

Hi,I'm the USofA,and 'Bald Eagle Turning Into Firebird' is officially a pipe dream as the delinquents in their dunce's caps in
a stalemate of their own making recognise innately maybe in quiet moments such as getting ready for bed,or looking at
your sleeping children that something has to change yet unwilling to do so,resorting to–

1.Scapegoating the British,their most loyal and stalwart friend who,via the Black Watch and SAS,train and turn US
Marines into warriors and survivalists,and who despatched 10,000 men without delay when the scales fell from
their eyes courtesy of Al-Qaeda,and have stood by them ever since unlike ANY OTHER COUNTRY,Holland and
Canada and Denmark pulling out or have already done so.They either revere us or insult us,and subsequently I
don't know where I stand on the love/hate trajectories.[Scottish Highlander,Gordons(disbanded 1991)]

2.Ignoring damning statistics,constantly seeking justification/vindication,and responding by buying more weaponry,
models of which I perhaps used [unwilling to name calibers/manufacturers+models–I'm not Salinger or Tesla].

I remain an uneasy,uncertain-where-I-stand friend as the world requires a strong AND stable America.

And you continue to discuss this using emotional rhetoric to attempt to illegally strip a const!tutional right away from law-abiding citizens.

You care naught for facts. You care for the emotional plug, despite the fact that these laws would not prevent even one of these deaths.

Canada does not have the same murder statistics as the United States because of a difference in culture. We have a culture that acts on emotional impulse rather than logic and fact, that dismisses education and embraces criminality, and that thinks it's not a person's fault when stuff like this happens, but that it's an object's fault. We have entire generations who have been taught that it's ok to be a victim, who have no shame or sense of personal responsibility.

It gets way worse? You mean you'll continue to sputter futilely on the internet? You'll perpetually play the victim and ensure others are victimized by removing their rights to an active defense? You'll keep saying "Twenty Candles" as though that makes a difference when no one took the initiative to actively defend these children? As though your little saying and 10,000 gun homicides a year somehow outweighs the 800,000 times yearly that personal civilian firearms are used in the prevention of a crime?

Walk away, boy. I have patience enough to deal with those who oppose my viewpoint from a logical stance. Your feelings have no dog in this fight.

I'm not a boy,I'm a Scottish Highlander,model for the SAS[Jock MacLean founder,fought a war on two fronts against
Campbells and McDonalds,the latter dying in Sandy Hook which you think should be like Fort Knox].

You wouldn't say that to my face.(We train YOU,lest we forget...)

Isn't all of the above reason to get assault rifles out of circulation?(He SMASHED his way in with the butt,Tesla,same
technique we used on the Western Front,bayonets getting stuck.)A good pistol and rifle,dexterity,NRA or Gun Owners
Of America to train folks,SURELY a sensible way to go.

310 MILLION MINIMUM out there,Tes.

P.S.I meant what I said about caliber sizes,etc.being posted:generic discussion is appropriate,Dunblane is mammoth

30,000 deaths. 10,000 homicides. 20,000 are suicides or accidents. Suicides don't count, as people who want to off themselves will find a way to off themselves. Accidents don't count unless we want to go back to the banning cars discussion again. 310,000,000 firearms out there. And 99.99% won't hurt anybody.

Even if you want to treat it as 30,000, the number still pales against criminal acts prevented by privately owned firearms.

Adam Lanza did not smash his way in with the butt of the gun. The AR-15 has a composite stock that is mostly hollow, allowing it to be lightweight. It would smash well before he got the door open. He breached the door by shooting around the lock, which can be done with any firearm.

The discussion of the specifications of any firearm are still incredibly important, as an Assault Weapons Ban still hangs as a goal of certain people. The point of the discussions of calibre, rate of fire, and ballistics is to clarify that the proposed legislation is a "scary gun" ban. This represents an infringement on const!tutional rights, performed without following the well-established laws for altering or repealing an amendment. It is backroom legislation, and it concerns me; what else are they trying to slip in by bending (or outright breaking) the law?

I don't care that you were a Scottish Highlander, or that you inspired the SAS, or that you trained portions of our military. Whatever I have to say, I would happily say to your face. I do not cower. You may be bigger, stronger, faster, and tougher, but I refuse to be a victim, and I refuse to allow someone else to take responsibility for my personal defense. Whatever evils of the world confront me, I will face them with disciplined firepower. If you can't accept that I and millions of others refuse to be made victims by our own government, then I suppose this conversation is over.

I believe there's a tea party planned.Are you going?I have some dry biscuits,we can dip them in,one lump or two–also
from The Colonies[half the bludy world,mate]–or 'dunk' I believe is the local expression.

How's the flogging going?Get every last farthing off them,Piers,it's what they're for,The Drones,busy litte bees,Piers,
working all day,TAXED within an inch of their lives,AND STILL LOYAL,Piers,STILL LOYAL!

Tesla,it's never made clear in 1984 that Big Brother IS conducting arenas of war,it's probably more the realm of
propaganda,strictly eye-of the-beholder stuff,and people hoodwinked constantly.I doubt the USA is remotely
comparable with Oceania;yes,agencies can have fingers in lots of pies,but the bottom line is obey the law,pay
your bills,and the Man will leave you alone.But the gun albatross,Tes...

It's not Fortress America,it's the UNITED STATES of America,and the future looks bleak.

We've always been at war with Eastasia. Always. It's never been different. We fight them for the few uncontested areas of the world. Eurasia are our allies. They've always been our allies.

It's good to have something to hate. In the United States, we hate the other political party. But not as much as we hated the Soviets. Then the Soviet Union fell. McCarthyism had no easy scapegoat to push increasingly draconian laws that would centralize power and authority among a few, while cowing anyone who might stand up against this injustice through slander, blackmail, and threats. So, now we hate the Middle East, and North Korea, and Chechnya, a small nation with very little to do with the U.S.A. And we're friends with the Russians now.

After all, we've always been at war with Eurasia. Fortunately, we've always had Eastasia to help us out.

War is an easy way to stir up patriotism. Patriotism is a quick route to nationalism. Nationalism is a small step from fascism.

As for follow the laws, pay the bills, etc... When the law changes repeatedly, continually infringing upon the rights of citizens who pay the bills (not just for themselves, but for the whole country, while others grow fat and happy on the profits), it seems like the one thing that could let the people stand against those who take advantage of them is being systematically criminalized. But that's ok. It's for the good of the Party, right? Follow the laws, pay the bills, black is white, 2+2=5, follow the laws, pay the bills, black is white, 2+2=5...

Hey~ thought you were going to self deport if "sensible gun laws" were not enacted ? Since you don't feel safe enough with your armed security who undoubtably are not limited to 7 rounds per mag you should really waste no time and depart as soon as possible.

This blog is brilliant,the best I've come across,the filter meaning it doesn't sound like the deck of a ship,but there's a lot
of folks armed to the teeth,like a recent observation:Alex Jones–thinks the Mafia and NYPD are after him–50 guns;an
NRA member–on a domestic abuse charge–39.Two men,almost 100 guns.

I've had people saying they want to 'feed their Simonov',I've had people boasting of guns everywhere when they and their families inhabit the same public places as the rest of us,and mainly are semi-demented rubes or semi-racist(what color was McVeigh?).

Bin Laden was cunning,he sowed the seeds on September 11th,and we need to be mindful of this,and on top you
add loneliness,insecurity to help light the touchpaper,and the proliferation I think is extensive:a big country,lot of lone wolves,all these mad notions that rattle around in their heads like stones in a tin.if you keep 'em talking long enough it starts to come out:Commies down the chimney,Muslim Mobs–look out the window.

What do you see?

I've had dialogs on here with people who talk like they're in a militia,superseded by the police years and years ago: if we don't get a grip then,TO AN EXTENT,Osama Bin Laden succeeded,this what he wanted,replace order with chaos,and the one place that isn't gun-totin' mad is New York.Assault rifles back on sale TWO DAYS AFTER in Newtown–Scotland and England cleared its shelves in a heartbeat.You need to help your decent beloved country,and going stir-crazy in a house fulla guns ain't it.Society has its own agenda,and we could be reaching critical mass the sheer amount,and we need to keep it together(remember Mr Bin Laden's aspirations).You're not the Boss,Society and its machinations are,Mount St Helens is,the Atlantic,Pacific,Chaos...we could be headed for REAL trouble,and if you're just blethering about or thinking of buying more guns at this point you may as well go and watch Oprah,and buy more tinfoil.The only thing to fear...

39 guns on a domestic abuse charge? Charges must not have stuck. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? That's how the system is supposed to work, not "You've been accused of a crime that is particularly distasteful to the public, so we're going to dem0nize you as though you did it before any evidence is even shown." (See George Zimmerman, Tawana Brawley, Duke Lacrosse, O.J. Simpson).

Yes, I "feed" my Simonov. It eats gun food. Just like your car drinks go-juice. It's an expression. In reality, due to the ammo shortage, I have not been able to keep practicing with my rifle. I dislike this, partially because this is a fun hobby, and partially because it usually is bought by someone who will be gouging others on the price. Hopefully, without the crazy demand, this will calm down.

That being said, you don't know me, but you feel fit to call me a "semi-demented rube" or "semi-racist," because I enjoy a hobby (collecting as well as shooting) and I don't want to continue to craft laws that criminalize a const!tutional right and law-abiding citizens; laws that have even the legislators pushing them saying that they would not have prevented one of the recent deaths, and have law enforcement adding that they won't prevent any crime. You call it "semi-demented," but I continue to see the same emotional rhetoric pushed (with little to no backing facts) in an attempt to pass legislation that does absolutely nothing but make law-abiding citizens into criminals.

We are not the lone wolves you seem to think we are. If we were, then the legislation would have passed, as no organizational backlash would have occured. And believe it or not, I do care about the safety of those around me, as do most (if not all) lawful gun owners. The concept of me defending myself, my country, or others with my rifle is not something I look forward to. Combat is never something to look forward to. However, I am prepared to do so if necessary. If my actions will save innocent lives, then I will take a life or lay mine down.

Per your comments on the militia: the militia serves a different purpose than the police, so it has not been superseded. The purpose of the militia was that it was free from government control, allowing a force that could not simply be crushed by the government.

New York has passed new legislation versus "assault weapons." It has done nothing to prevent criminal activity or civilian deaths, just as the last AWB did nothing to prevent criminal activity or civilian deaths. We can wait to see if it will be effective later; if so, maybe they've done something different with the law that makes enforcement easier. I do know that New York has used a gun registry before that did not prevent crime; this did not stop them from declaring many registered guns illegal many years later and using the registry to confiscate them without compensation (also known as the government stealing from you).

One last thing. I am the boss. I tell myself every day. You have to be the boss. The world is changed by individuals who decided to be the boss. Some for good, some for ill. Your att!tude that society and it's machinations are the boss (considering society is made up of people) leads, at best, to a bunch of useless people taking credit for what a few great individuals did; at worst, it leads to jackboots and hol0causts.

Go on. Explain to me how embracing the right of the individual to have the power to stand against oppression, be it criminal or government, is embracing the principles of Ingsoc. Explain how encouraging everyone to take personal responsibility for their own safety is the same as encouraging a totalitarian state ruled by surveillance and secret police.

I am a first generation immigrant from not so (relatively) bad part of the world. To own a gun in my country you need a license and it is expensive. I dont want to talk about the red tape involved in getting the license but neverthless it leaves the option to take the pains of owning the gun open to few who can. Since past few months I have been wondering a lot about why people in this part of DEVELOPED world would want to own gun. I have taken time out and watched Piers Morgan shows to understand what the pro-gun people have to say, and I personally feel humiliated at the illogical, paranoid and mindless arguments given by some of the guests on the show. But like a mature non-citizen with no right to voice my opinion I decide to focus my energy on other issues until I accidently end up having a conversation with an "Ordinary" pro-gun citizen.
Me: So why do you need a Gun
Him: To Protect ourself
Me: From Whom
Him: (In confident High pitched voice) Its the SECOND AMMENDMENT
Me: Ok. But why do you need a gun in present time
Him: To protect ourselves from the Government. Our government is doing lots of bad things
Me: But dont you trust your government? Your government is apparently protecting billions of people in less privileged countries. In countries where governemts are actually killing their own people.
Him:Ye, I agree. But times are not so good. We dont trust our government.
Me: YOU ELECTED THE government
Him: Well Guns are not problem but Bad people with gun are problem.
Me: How do bad people get the guns?
Him: they steal from good people
Me: How can they steal from "good" people if good people dont have guns. And what do "good" people need guns for?

My conversation then went to enlighten him that in civil terms we are in the safest country in the world. Terrorist attacks, bombings and other unfortunate mass destruction evensts are not as common here. In my country bombs are norm of life, people dont get affected unless the casualty number is in the ballpark of 100, and that too is forgotten soon enough and life is back to normal as if nothing happened.

I referred to my discussion with pro-gun friend few days ago on immigration reforms and informed him that being able to lead a safe life with full trust on police forces to protect us, people from the other parts of the world want to come here. I can be sure that in case of any emergency, help is just a 911 call away. So what the response is late(not sure on late bit) but atleast you can expect one. In several countries including mine, you can not expect your own elected politicians or designated police to respond unless you have the right connections or you are a person of privilege.

There are more number of people being killed in this country by its own citizens than the actual terrorism activities. To me citizens killing each other for personal grudge is worse then terrorism. So far not a single argument i have heard "pro-gun" on Piers Morgan show or other media gives one logical reason on need for these weapons. All i read in eyes of pro-gun people is "Paronia"

“Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” - Edmund Burke
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

It’s only been 70 years since WW2 ended. And already, many people have forgotten the important teachings from the most unfortunate event, for example, how Hitler so quickly came to power in a formerly “democratic” country and triggered a world war, and how over 60 MILLION people were killed in the atrocities of WW2. When confiscating guns from civilians, Hilter said “Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"... Only if German people didn’t listen to him, many of the Jews didn’t have to perish in the Auschwitz

We the people must always watch what our government does and always have the power over the government (by physically outgunning them) and make sure that any power-hungry politicians with tyrannical tendencies know their limit, that their wildest dreams wouldn’t ever come true (so they won’t even dare try) because the people have the power to fight against the corrupt government to the bitter end. And it is our moral obligation to pass on this “power of the people” to the later generations as our Founding Fathers intended, to ensure that our great-great-great-grand-children will enjoy the freedom that we enjoy today. We must fight tooth and nail to preserve the Second Amendment.

Hi Piers,
Too late to control guns and buyers through politicians. But not too late to control the future of AMMUNITION through regulating and taxing manufacturing of ammo!!
a. Make all ammo coded and traceable and expensive. Microchip all ammo. Make possession of untraceable ammo illegal.
b. Make possession of over a certain amount of ammunition illegal. (25 rounds?)
c. Sell untraceable ammunition cheaply only at shooting and hunting ranges and only for use inside the ranges.
d. Open more sports and fun shooting ranges.
e. Use the extra money generated by taxed ammo to educate against gun violence and offer mental health services.

What happen in Sandy Hook is a real tragic event for all of us. How anyone could target little children like that is unconscionable. But the answer to the question "how we can prevent tragedies like this from occurring" isn't going to be to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. Two and a half centuries ago Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria wrote this in his essay On Crimes and Punishments, "false is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousands real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience’ that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes". It was ideas like this that help form this great country. A modern day example of this philosophy in action can be seen after another such tragedy in the UK in 1996. In the Dunblane school massacre the gunman shot down 16 children and 1 adult. The reaction from the UK government was to further restrict firearms, passing the most restrictive laws on firearms in the history of the country. The result was as predicted by Beccaria many years ago. Violent crime, including homicides, rose to unprecedented levels. There is no easy fix for the problem, we should do what we can to protect our children, taking our rights away will not solve the problem.

Don't necessarily agree with you,but respect your restraint,and thanks for posting,but I've no idea what you mean when you say the UK reached quote 'violent and unprecedented levels[homicides]'.Please clarify which events you mean as last year's murder total[540,I believe]is the lowest on record since 1989.

As for July '96 it was 15 not 16 kids,mercifully one less than you thought,and depressingly we've seen its sequel with no
new laws passed.

You have to bear in mind you're writing from a US context:we don't HAVE Amendments thus there IS no right to bear arms,and Uzis have been banned ever since,and we wouldn't have it any other way.

Piers, you are a joke! You lie about statistics and try to cheat viewers with factoids. You keep emphasizing UK is such a wonderful crime-free place thanks to gun control, but fail to mention that, although low in gun-related deaths, your motherland has one of the highest crime rates (per 100.000 habitants) in the EU. Is a person murdered by knife or hammer or drunk driving any less dead than if murdered by a gun? As a matter of fact, all the mass murders you shamelessly use as flagship to your blindly fanatical crusade happened in gun-free zones. You forget that James Holmes drove the extra mile past a few gun-permitted theaters to attack a gun-free zone theater – he may be crazy, but not stupid to try to shoot at armed patrons. Were you in that Aurora theater at the moment Holmes attacked, wouldn’t you wish an armed law-abiding citizen rescued your sorry life right there or would rather wait until someone notified police and they arrived? How dare you to be so obnoxiously arrogant and hypocrite to the millions of sane and honest gun owners around the world? Why should law-abiding Americans listen to you, a criminal that fled to the US to run away from British justice? You disgrace CNN with your lack of virtues that turns a potential talk show into a one-person (you) shouting session with lower standards than an afternoon tabloid talk show. And don’t even dare tell me you are right, because I live in Brazil (look it up) and know first-hand what the effects of gun control are, and they are far from the fake pretty picture you sell to the public.

Hitting a backlit target would be fairly simple just sighting along the barrel, let alone with a standard notch-and-post iron sight as almost ever handgun has, especially if it is a high-visibility sight.

You may be right though. If he didn't have that "elite soldier" gear (which really just let him carry more ammo; considering that he didn't empty his weapons, this had little effect) and those mail-order bullets (which he could have bought from a Wal-Mart), there would have been no way he could have shot up the place. He just would have used any number of the mult!tude of homemade explosive and incendiary devices he had created from household materials.

Perhaps we should enforce existing laws; such as the ones that require the breaking of doctor-patient confidentiality if it is suspected by a psychologist that their patient is a potential danger to themselves or others, as occured in this case.

There is already a back ground check system in place, if the government enforced it, Sandy Hook shooter failed one weeks prior to the shooting, why didn't the ATF follow up on this failed check along with the other 40,000 failures, it's against the law to apply if you are a felon or have other convictions? Why don't they follow up, well it costs money! If they dont enforce this one why another,

Jerry Miculek set a world record with a revolver shooting 12 shots in just 3 seconds, reloading once. It's not an assault weapon but if you practice with it you can let off more rounds per second than a AR 15. The AR 15 looks like an assault weapon but it is not just so you know Piers. You should know that anyway.

"All it does, is mean that if somebody wants to sell a gun to somebody at a gun show, or do it privately, that they have to basically have it checked to find out if they're criminals or mentally ill..." -- Hmmmm, we already have to do this in California. But this wont prevent a crazy person from stealing your guns and killing some kids. Isn't murder already against the law? A lot of good that law did for us...

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.